Comparable rates of lymph node metastasis and survival between diffuse type and intestinal type early gastric cancer patients: a large population-based study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Limited evidence and contradictory results exist regarding the impact of Lauren type, namely diffuse and intestinal types, of lymph node metastasis (LNM) and prognosis for early gastric cancer (EGC). We aimed to compare LNM and prognosis between diffuse and intestinal type EGCs using comprehensive statistical analysis. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to identify all patients with surgically resected, histologically diagnosed, intestinal or diffuse type EGC. Multivariate logistic regression, multivariate Cox regression, multivariate competing risk model, and propensity score matching were used to analyze association the Lauren type and LNM or prognosis. RESULTS: We identified 5593 EGCs from the SEER database, including 4376 intestinal types and 1217 diffuse types. No positive association was found between LNM and Lauren type (odds ratio, .93; 95% confidence interval [CI], .70-1.24; P = .62) after adjustment for other risk factors. Moreover, diffuse-type EGCs showed a similar prognosis to intestinal type EGCs in both multivariate Cox regression (HR [hazard ratio], .95; 95% CI, .77-1.18; P = .66) and the multivariate competing risk model (subdistribution HR [SHR], .99; 95% CI, .80-1.22; P = .926). Propensity score matching was used, and 733 diffuse types were matched with 733 intestinal types. We did not find any association between the Lauren type and LNM (odds ratio, .98; 95% CI, .71-1.37; P = .934) or prognosis in the univariate Cox regression (HR, .98; 95% CI, .76-1.26; P = .893) and univariate competing risk model (SHR, .98; 95% CI, .76-1.26; P = .893). CONCLUSIONS: Diffuse-type EGC may have a comparable risk of LNM and prognosis to intestinal-type EGC. Nevertheless, these results should be carefully interpreted with caution when choosing endoscopic resection instead of surgery, because the treatment choice for EGC depends on the risk of lymphovascular invasion rather than LNM rate or prognosis.

The influence of marital status on the survival of patients with esophageal cancer: a population-based, propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Multiple studies have shown that marital status is associated with the survival of various types of cancer patients. However, there has not been adequate evidence of the association between marital status and the survival of patients with esophageal cancer (EC). We aimed to investigate the effect of marital status on survival of EC patients. METHODS: We identified 15,598 EC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Meanwhile, propensity scores for marital status, which were calculated for each patient using a nonparsimonious multivariable logistic regression model, were used to match 6,319 unmarried patients with 9,279 married patients. We performed Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression to analyze the association between marital status and the overall survival (OS) and EC cause-specific survival (CSS) of EC patients before matching and after matching. RESULTS: We matched 2,986 unmarried patients with 2,986 married patients. Unmarried patients had poorer OS than married patients before matching (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-1.27; P < 0.0001) and after matching (HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.13-1.27; P < 0.0001) and poorer CSS than married patients before matching (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.16-1.26; P < 0.0001) and after matching (HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.10-1.24; P < 0.0001). Further analysis showed that among different unmarried patients, widowed patients had the poorest OS (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.38-1.55; P < 0.0001) and CSS (HR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.34-1.52; P < 0.0001) compared with married patients. CONCLUSIONS: Unmarried EC patients had poorer survival rates than married EC patients. Meanwhile, widowed patients with EC had the highest risk of death compared with single, married, and divorced patients.

Narrow-band imaging in the diagnosis of deep submucosal colorectal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and aims Magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (M-NBI) has been widely used in the differential diagnosis of deep submucosal colorectal cancers (dSMCs) from superficial submucosal cancers (sSMCs) and intramucosal neoplasms. We aimed to pool the diagnostic efficacy of M-NBI and compare it with that of magnifying chromoendoscopy (M-CE) in diagnosing colorectal dSMC. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify eligible studies. Meeting abstracts were also searched. A bivariate mixed-effects binary regression model was used in the meta-analysis to calculate the pooled diagnostic efficacy of M-NBI and compare it with that of M-CE in the diagnosis of dSMC. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity. Results We included 17 studies: 14 full texts and 3 meeting abstracts. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) in diagnosing dSMC were 74 % (66 % - 81 %; I2 = 84.6 %), 98 % (94 % - 99 %; I2 = 94.4 %), and 0.91 (0.88 - 0.93), respectively, for M-NBI. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC (95 %CI) were 84 % (76 % - 89 %; I2 = 76.9 %), 97 % (94 % - 99 %; I2 = 90.2 %), and 0.97 (0.95 - 0.98), respectively, for M-CE. M-NBI had lower sensitivity (P < 0.01) than M-CE with similar specificity (P = 0.32). Subgroup analyses and meta-regression indicated that endoscopic diagnostic criteria, study type, endoscope type, risk of index test bias, and histopathological diagnostic criteria might be the sources of heterogeneity. Conclusions M-NBI and M-CE had comparable specificities in diagnosing dSMC, but the sensitivity of M-NBI was slightly lower than that of M-CE.